Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word or expression in multiple senses within an argument. [1] [2] It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence. [1]
Syllogistic fallacies – logical fallacies that ... Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a ... The following is a sample of books for further ...
In everyday reasoning, the fallacy of four terms occurs most frequently by equivocation: using the same word or phrase but with a different meaning each time, creating a fourth term even though only three distinct words are used. The resulting argument sounds like the (valid) first example above, but is in fact structured like the invalid ...
The following statements are examples of false equivalence: [3] "The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no more harmful than when your neighbor drips some oil on the ground when changing his car's oil." The "false equivalence" is the comparison between things differing by many orders of magnitude: [ 3 ] Deepwater Horizon spilled 210 million US gal ...
A second example provides a first proposition that appears realistic and shows how an obviously flawed conclusion still arises under this fallacy. [3] To be on the cover of Vogue Magazine, one must be a celebrity or very beautiful. This month's cover was a celebrity. Therefore, this celebrity is not very beautiful.
An example is a probabilistically valid instance of the formally invalid argument form of denying the antecedent or affirming the consequent. [ 12 ] Thus, "fallacious arguments usually have the deceptive appearance of being good arguments, [ 13 ] because for most fallacious instances of an argument form, a similar but non-fallacious instance ...
The strawman fallacy, for example, involves inaccurately attributing a weak position to one's opponent [4] and then proving this position to lead to one's own conclusion. This mistake is not logical in the strict sense but dialogical: the conclusion may as well follow from these premises but the opponent does not hold these commitments. [1]
Unlike normal examples of equivocation where one exploits already existing, perhaps quite subtle, differences of meaning, Humpty Dumptying is hardly subtle. The differences in meaning are so obvious that equivocating by use of them cannot normally be pursued without first softening up the audience.